Article on Buddhism and Governance

Ven. Shravasti Dhammika has posted an excellent article about Buddhism and government, inspired by the recent dethroning of King Gayanendra of Nepal.

Some interesting quotes from this excellent article:

Different religions have different theories about the origins and nature of kinship. The Bible for example, says that all rulers derive their power from God and thus to obey the king is to obey God (Romans 13,1-2). In Europe this doctrine came to be known as ‘the divine right of kings’.
...
The Buddha had an entirely different and more realistic concept of kings and kingship. In the Agganna Sutta he posited a social contract theory of monarchy. In ancient days, he said, people saw the need for some form of government and so they elected from amongst themselves a person who they thought would be best able to rule them.
...
Thus according to the Buddhist theory, kings derived their legitimacy from general consent, i.e. from the people they ruled. It followed from this that a king retained his right to rule only for so long as his subjects benefited from it. Several stories in the Jataka implicitly suggest that people had a right to overthrow a king who was cruel, unjust or incompetent (Ja.I,326; III,513-14; VI,156).
Such ideas were far too ahead of their time and there is little evidence that they were ever applied. However, the Buddha’s teaching of good governance had some influence in making kings more humane.

Not to trash Europeans or anything, but it is kind of interesting how European countries tend to retain symbolic monarchies along with some symbolic version of the "divine right of kings." Perhaps this is mostly just a sort of clinging to tradition, but there are people in the west who still seem to believe in this "divine right of kings" idea. Essentially they deny that people ever have the "right" to revolt against their government, no matter what, even if democracy ceases to exist.

This tends to come up most frequently in arguments regarding the US 2nd Amendment since this right is used as part of the justification for it. It's not clear that this is always an indication of siding with some sort of "divine right of kings" (or the general idea "subjects" exist for the sake of the government) or just the notion that there should be some non-violent way of revolting.

Buddhist Economics: Relating Skillfully to Wealth

Reading more of Ven. P. A. Payutto's book on Buddhist Economics, someone pointed out to me the following which seems particularly important:

In the Suttas, the Buddha stresses four areas in which householders may relate skillfully to wealth [D.III.188; A.V.176-182]:

Acquisition -- Wealth should not be acquired by exploitation, but through effort and intelligent action; it should be acquired in a morally sound way.

Safekeeping -- Wealth should be saved and protected as an investment for the further development of livelihood and as an insurance against future adversity. When accumulated wealth exceeds these two needs, it may be used for creating social benefit by supporting community works.

Use -- Wealth should be put to the following uses: (1) to support oneself and one's family; (2) to support the interests of fellowship and social harmony, such as in receiving guests, or in activities of one's friends or relatives; (3) to support good works, such as community welfare projects.

Mental attitude -- Wealth should not become an obsession, a cause for worry and anxiety. It should rather be related to with an understanding of its true benefits and limitations, and dealt with in a way that leads to personal development.

The teachings from a monk in Thailand are particularly interesting since Thailand was not subjected to the western colonialism that modified some of the thinking about Buddhism and economics in other Southeast Asian countries. Ven. Payutto's book is also refreshing because he doesn't try to advocate for a specific economic system (such as Socialism, Communism, Capitalism, Feudalism/Manorialism, etc.) but instead talks about the ethical issues surrounding economic decisions.

I would highly recommend his book, especially to American Buddhists who probably haven't heard of any of the suttas that he mentions or quotes.

Footsteps of the Buddha Update

Footsteps of the Buddha for Google Earth now has it's own web page and it's own blog. No more information about FOTB will be posted on Political Buddhism, so if you want to stay updated then you'll need to subscribe to the new blog.

Also, I've reimplemented FOTB using a "network link" which means that if you delete it from Google Earth and reload it from the new web site then you will receive automatic updates to it's content without having to do anything again. (Updates will happen once a day or on manual refresh.)

The Honorable Purposes of Debate

An article mentioned by Dhamma81 on Dhamma Reflections got me to thinking about the purpose of debate.

Unfortunately for most people, the purpose of debate is "to win." In my opinion this is foolish. For me, the greatest value in debate come from losing, at least to some degree. Why? Because when you lose you stand some chance of learning something. Really you don't have to lose completely, but if you only "lose" in the sense that the other person brings up a valid point that you hadn't considered then you've gained something.

Recently I've been doing research for my Footsteps of the Buddha geo-biography project and for that reading The Buddha and His Disciples by Ven. Dhammika. One of the things mentioned pertains to debates.

At first the Buddha avoided debates due to tactics like that of one trickster who would show up early for a debate, tell the crowd that his opponent had failed to show, then proceed to trash his opponent for being too afraid to appear.

But gradually as his Dharma became more popular and began to be challenged or misrepresented by ascetics of other sects, [the Buddha] began to frequent debates. In fact, he was soon recognised as the most persuasive debater of his time. Certain rules governed the conduct of debates and the Buddha always abided by these rules and expected others to follow them also. When a young man named Canki kept interjecting while the Buddha was debating with some learned Brahmins, he turned to him and said firmly: "Quiet, Canki! Do not interrupt while we are speaking."[ N11 ] If on being asked a question for the third time a person could still not answer, the Buddha would insist that they admit defeat as was the rule.[ N12 ] Once he asked an ascetic if he readily believed in the view he held, the ascetic said, "I believe it and so do all these people," as he pointed at the large audience. The Buddha said, "What they believe is not the point. Is that your view?"[ N13 ] But of course the Buddha's purpose was not to defeat his opponents but to lead them to a clearer understanding. To this end he would often use what is called the Socratic method, so called because in the West it was first used by the Greek philosopher Socrates, asking clearer questions as a means of leading people to an insight or to prove a point. For example, once during a discussion, a Brahmin named Sonadanda proclaimed: "A true Brahmin has pure ancestry, he is well-versed in the sacred scriptures, he is fair in colour, he is virtuous, he is wise and he is an expert in the rituals." The Buddha asked: "Could a person lack one of these qualities and still be considered a Brahmin?" Sonadanda thought for a moment and then admitted that one could have a dark complexion and still be a Brahmin. Continuing to ask the same question, Sonadanda was led to the same view as the Buddha's, that it is not ancestry, knowledge, colour or social status that makes one superior but virtue and wisdom.[ N14 ]

So I'm afraid that I can't agree that debates are always totally pointless. Much of the time they are because you have nothing to teach, the other people have nothing for you to learn, and everyone involved is too childish to benefit anyway.

Perhaps the key is to use discernment to judge when a debate is worthwhile and when it isn't.

Another thing is to not behave as though you're just preaching and doing nothing else. Another important point from the previously quoted book:

When he met people strongly attached to their views and whom he knew he could not change, he would suggest discussing points of agreement so as to avoid fruitless arguments. At such times he would say: "About these things there is no agreement, therefore, let us put them aside. About the things on which we agree let us take up and talk about."[ N6 ] Sometimes rather than talk about his own Dharma he would invite his opponents to explain their teachings first. At a time when there was great competition and jealousy among different religions, the Buddha's fairness often caused surprise. Once a group of ascetics met the Buddha and their leader asked him to explain his Dharma. The Buddha said: "Better still, tell me about your teachings." The ascetics were astonished and said to each other: "It is wonderful, truly marvellous, how great is the ascetic Gotama in that he will hold back his own views and invite others to explain theirs."[ N7 ] When people asked a particularly appropriate or relevant question he would praise them, thereby encouraging discussion, questioning and inquiry. When Bhadda asked such a question, the Buddha replied, "Well said! Well said, friend Bhadda! Your understanding is welcome. Your wisdom is welcome."[ N8 ]

Perhaps we are not the Buddha, but we can still learn something from him when it comes to debate.

7 Knowledges of an Ideal Person

I often read Bhikkhu Samahita's What Buddha Said google group where he posts various sutta readings on a daily basis. Today he posted something from the Anguttara Nikaya which I found interesting: the 7 Knowledges of an Ideal Person. (I can't seem to find the exact sutta online anywhere else, but he lists it as AN IV 113.)

The sutta describes both the ideal monk and ideal layperson. Below I've quoted only the parts pertaining to laypeople:

Which 7 Knowledges makes a Person Ideal?

1: Knower of the Dhamma, Principles, and Causes (Dhammaññūtā):
...
The ideal lay person knows the underlying principles of everyday life, & what is reasonable to do. He knows and understands the duties & responsibilities of his own & other posts & occupations.

2: Knower of the Goals, Objectives, and Meanings (Atthaññūtā):
...
The ideal lay person knows the aim of his duty, position, or occupation & the real purpose of life.

3: Knower of Oneself (Mattaññūtā):
...
The ideal lay person knows his exact status, condition, strength, knowledge, ability, & morality. He then acts accordingly and does what is needed to improve and reach greater maturity.

4: Knower of Moderation (Attaññūtā):
...
The ideal lay person knows moderation in consumption, spending, speech, work, rest, & recreation.

5: Knower of Right Occasion (Kalaññūtā):
...
The ideal lay person knows the proper & punctual occasion for any dealing with other people.

6: Knower of Groups (Parisaññūtā):
...
The ideal lay person knows individual differences, temperaments, abilities, & virtues of other people. He knows this community have these rules & regulations; culture & tradition; they have these needs.

7: Knower of Persons (Puggalaññūtā):
...
The ideal lay person knows whether particular other people should be associated with, what can be learned from them, & how they should be related to, employed, praised, criticized, advised, & taught.

I seem to be kind of bad at some of these. I guess I'm not the ideal layperson just yet.

Here is a widget that will give you a preview of Bhikkhu Samahita's blog (really a Google Group but it's sort of structured like a blog and has an RSS feed.)

Get this widget!

Footsteps of the Buddha in Google Earth

[Note: Footsteps of the Buddha now has it's own web page! This blog entry contains old information. Please check out the new web page here!]

Today is Visakha Puja (Vesak), otherwise known as Buddha Day or the day of the Buddha's birth, enlightenment, and passing away. Actually, the day is either today (May 19th, 2008) or tomorrow depending on who's lunar calendar reckoning you're using.

A couple of days ago I started working on a tour of the Buddha's life in Google Earth and, even though I wouldn't consider it to be 100% complete yet, I thought I'd release it today to commemorate the occasion.

So I present to you Footsteps of the Buddha for Google Earth. Google Earth is free and can be downloaded here. Please let me know if any of the locations are wrong or if there's a more correct chronological order.

[EDIT: Please visit the new web site here.]

If you stop the playback and click on the location, a description will appear which, for many places, begins with a sutta excerpt of something that the Buddha said in that location or about his life in that location. Descriptions also contain links to sources of material included in the descriptions.

Again, please let me know if you have any suggestions, places to add, or corrections of any sort. All help with this will be greatly appreciated. You can either leave comments in this post or send email to the address listed in the description in Google Earth (which is also visible in the photo above.)

Have a Happy, Compassionate, Sympathetic, and most importantly Equanimous Visakha.

Scholarly comments on religion and the cyclone

New Mandala pointed out this article from the San Francisco Chronicle. One part mentioned:

The Buddhism practiced by the generals running the country is not mainstream Theravada Buddhism, but involves a high degree of mysticism and superstition that harkens back to pre-Buddhist animist traditions, according to Priscilla Clapp, who served as the top U.S. diplomat in Burma from 1999 to 2002.

"They pretend they're traditional Theravada Buddhists, but they really aren't," she said. "They indoctrinate their officers especially and also the rank and file soldiers politically. ... So they can justify really outrageous actions on the basis of Buddhism, including attacks on monks and letting people starve. It has everything to do with keeping them in power."

This is just beyond belief. I have to wonder what kind of nonsense they are telling their soldiers.

I should take this opportunity to mention that this blog is about the impact of Buddhism on politics and trying to figure out what the implications of certain Buddhist beliefs are. I also hope to try to free Buddhism from use as a political tool. I believe people of any political belief should be free to learn about and practice Buddhism, and that nobody should ever be excluded just because they don't meet what some people think of as the proper "Buddhist" political faction. People who's political beliefs don't agree with Dhamma I would hope would change once they learn something, but obviously this can't be guaranteed and it's up to them to decide what does and doesn't agree.

We have some people in the west who I think hold their political beliefs to be higher than Dhamma and only believe in Buddhism because they think it helps them further their political beliefs or agenda. They'll happily discard Dhamma or Buddhism if it turns out to not support their beliefs because their political faction or party or whatever is higher than Dhamma or Buddhism to them. So:

1. Buddhism is not for people to use as a political tool.


2. If something regarding Dhamma contradicts your political beliefs, I'd seriously hope you'd look at changing your political beliefs rather than ignoring Dhamma.

No doubt some people at some point are going to accuse me of trying to use Buddhism as a political tool, but that's nonsense. I am attempting to explore political implications and not push some pre-existing external agenda that I just happen to think Buddhism might be useful for pushing. Still, as I express opinions on interpretations of things in Buddhism my political beliefs can't be avoided, but my goal is to do what's best, not push some preconceived notion of what's best. Unlike some people I will happily discard any political position I have if it turns out to be harmful.

Anyway, regarding superstitious practices, especially performed by monks, the Tipitaka (DN 2 in the Great Section on Virtue) can't be more disapproving:

"Whereas some priests and contemplatives, living off food given in faith, maintain themselves by wrong livelihood, by such lowly arts as: reading marks on the limbs [e.g., palmistry]; reading omens and signs; interpreting celestial events [falling stars, comets]; interpreting dreams; reading marks on the body [e.g., phrenology]; reading marks on cloth gnawed by mice; offering fire oblations, oblations from a ladle, oblations of husks, rice powder, rice grains, ghee, and oil; offering oblations from the mouth; offering blood-sacrifices; making predictions based on the fingertips; geomancy; laying demons in a cemetery; placing spells on spirits; reciting house-protection charms; snake charming, poison-lore, scorpion-lore, rat-lore, bird-lore, crow-lore; fortune-telling based on visions; giving protective charms; interpreting the calls of birds and animals — he abstains from wrong livelihood, from lowly arts such as these.

On the positive side:

Many Burmese citizens are going around government authorities and beginning to organize themselves to respond to the disaster, Clapp said. Grassroots Burmese groups are working with monks and with the handful of international aid agencies on the ground to improvise solutions such as fashioning replacements for lost rain barrels to collect the monsoon rains for drinking water.

"It's that kind of activity that will eventually overcome the grip the military has on the country: learning how to work together to organize and make things happen," Clapp said.

I hope some real monks can also train those solders and try to undo some of the brainwashing performed by the junta. It might be one of the more important things they could do.

Is Advertising Fundamentally Evil?

As I continue to read Buddhist Economics by Ven. P. A. Payutto (as previously mentioned, an excellent work), I come across more interesting things to think about.

One of them is whether or not advertising is evil.

Advertising stimulates economic activity, but often at an ethically unacceptable price. Advertising is bound up with popular values: advertisers must draw on common aspirations, prejudices and desires in order to produce advertisements that are appealing. Employing social psychology, advertising manipulates popular values for economic ends, and because of its repercussions on the popular mind, it has considerable ethical significance. The volume of advertising may cause an increase in materialism, and unskillful images or messages may harm public morality. The vast majority of ads imbue the public with a predilection for selfish indulgence; they condition us into being perfect consumers who have no higher purpose in life than to consume the products of modern industry. In the process, we are transformed into 'hungry ghosts,' striving to feed an everlasting craving, and society becomes a seething mass of conflicting interests.

Moreover, advertising adds to the price of the product itself. Thus people tend to buy unnecessary things at prices that are unnecessarily expensive. There is much wastage and extravagance. Things are used for a short while and then replaced, even though they are still in good condition. Advertising also caters to peoples' tendency to flaunt their possessions as a way of gaining social status. When snob-appeal is the main criterion, people buy unnecessarily expensive products without considering the quality. In extreme cases, people are so driven by the need to appear stylish that they cannot wait to save the money for the latest gadget or fashion -- they simply use their credit cards. Spending in excess of earnings can become a vicious cycle. A newer model or fashion is advertised and people plunge themselves deeper and deeper into debt trying to keep up. In this way, unethical advertising can lead people to financial ruin. It is ironic that, with the vast amount of 'information technology' available, most of it is used to generate 'misinformation' or delusion.

On the political plane, decisions have to be made regarding policy on advertising -- should there be any control, and if so, of what kind? How is one to achieve the proper balance between moral and economic concerns? Education is also involved. Ways may have to be found to teach people to be aware of how advertising works, to reflect on it, and to consider how much of it is to be believed. Good education should seek to make people more intelligent in making decisions about buying goods. The question of advertising demonstrates how activities prevalent in society may have to be considered from many perspectives, all of which are interrelated.

I've always felt like advertising was fundamentally evil. I've always hated how full of lies and nonsense it is. But what can we really do to stop it?

One ironic thing to note here is that even though the vast majority of advertising isn't in accordance with Dhamma, as it seems to perpetrate an illusion, or perhaps I should say delusion, one of the biggest supporters that I know of (who provides much of the support for one of the only Theravada temples in the US with an English-speaking monk) actually owns an advertising business. (This isn't really too shocking because artists tend to be interested in things like Buddhism, and advertising is one viable area that artists can get into if they actually want to make a living as such.)

Overall I don't see much that we can do about advertising in general except maybe truth in advertising laws that prevent outright lies, and education to help people understand how advertisers try to wiggle around these laws with various tricks to manipulate people. Perhaps some of the tricks could be outlawed, but it might be tough outlaw certain things like advertising that a detergent has "more super clean-o power than before" or something. About all we can do is try to teach people that "clean-o power" is some totally subjective quality without the objective empirical validity that the advertiser seems to be trying to suggest.

Even if promoting delusional ideas like "super clean-o power" is outlawed, it's pretty much impossible to outlaw images that try to suggest that buying a certain product makes everyone exceedingly happy with their lives to the point where they're dancing down the street. What are you going to do? Outlaw any smiling people in ads? Outlaw dancing in ads?

I really wish we had more critical thinking education in public schools in the US. Even if it weren't labeled as "Buddhist critical thinking class", critical thinking in general is quite Buddhist as evidenced in the Kalama Sutta. Even if we can't realistically outlaw advertising, there's no reason why we couldn't try to make people more resistant to being manipulated by it.

The problem is that politicians rely on advertising too, not just companies trying to sell stuff. Because of this, it's a conflict of interests for politicians to try to encourage people to think critically because then those people might think critically about what the politicians were saying and reject it.

So, it's tough to do anything about advertising in a place where the political system actually depends on advertising and where doing anything about advertising is against the interests of the politicians.

This means that it's probably always going to be up to us private individuals to try to teach people to think critically and be resistant to advertising manipulation. Even in purely communist countries that don't have "capitalist" advertising, they still have advertising in the form of government propaganda and, unfortunately, nobody can even attempt any sort of counter-advertising in that sort of environment due to censorship. Not only that, but if everything is owned by the government it's difficult for private individuals to even get any resources together to spread their message.

Ultimately I think advertising is really neutral. It's just mass communication, though frequently it's used for not-so-great purposes. But it could be used to promote Dhamma, for example, it just that it usually isn't.

Buddhist Economics by Ven. P. A. Payutto

In a previous post I mentioned that I was not impressed with E. F. Schumaker, the guy who originally coined the term "Buddhist Economics." Mr. Schumaker seemed to be trying to use Buddhism as a tool to support his own ideas, rather than necessarily basing his ideas on Buddhism, and his tendency to quote western thinkers while not citing references to actual Buddhist sources was extremely disappointing to me. As it turns out, E. F. Schumaker's ideas probably have more to do with American Transcendentalism (see Professor Mark Blum's talk) than actual Buddhism.

Venerable P. A. Payutto is an actual Thai Buddhist monk though, so not surprisingly his book on Buddhist Economics is much more sound. He actually uses terms like chanda (intention) and tanha (craving) and otherwise seems to know what he's talking about.

He does seem to advocate an approach of integrating economics and ethics:

Ultimately, economics cannot be separated from Dhamma, because all the activities we associate with economics emerge from the Dhamma. Economics is just one part of a vast interconnected whole, subject to the same natural laws by which all things function. Dhamma describes the workings of this whole, the basic truth of all things, including economics. If economics is ignorant of the Dhamma -- of the complex and dynamic process of causes-and-effects that constitutes reality -- then it will be hard pressed to solve problems, much less produce the benefits to which it aims.

Yet this is precisely the trouble with modern economic thinking. Lacking any holistic, comprehensive insight and limited by the narrowness of their specialized view, economists single out one isolated portion of the stream of conditions and fail to consider results beyond that point. An example: there exists a demand for a commodity, such as whiskey. The demand is supplied by production -- growing grain and distilling it into liquor. The whiskey is then put on the market and then purchased and consumed. When it is consumed, demand is satisfied. Modern economic thinking stops here, at the satisfaction of the demand. There is no investigation of what happens after the demand is satisfied.

This probably makes more sense in Thailand where most people are Buddhist, but in the US for example we have people of different religions and it seems like it makes more sense to try to make economics a more neutral study and leave ethical decisions to the political process used to enact various economic policies.

For example, should a society maximize wealth or well-being? An economist might tell you that a policy will retard the economy but he can't be expected to tell you if it will increase people's well being because well being is difficult to measure. He may be able to measure it if observable metrics can be determined. As absurd as it may sound to some people, a monetary value might need to be placed on the well being (perhaps based on survey data of people in society, i.e. how much money are you willing to give up in order to be this much happier?) in order to determine if people will think they're getting they're money's worth for the well being.

Again, this may sound crazy to some people who think that well being is "priceless" but to many people it isn't priceless, and failure to try to estimate some value can cause the value to essentially get treated as zero. Regulators already place a value on human life in certain contexts, such as prevention of a statistical death. Believe it or not, survey data within a society will reveal the amount of money a person is willing to spend to prevent a random unknown person from dying.

So in some of these economic models, I think the place of Dhamma and Buddhist teaching in general is to help set the values on how much happiness and saving peoples' lives is worth.

We can't really force these values on people, especially in a democratic country, because people are going to set their own values regardless. If the politicians spend too much money, in the opinion of the public, to save statistical lives or increase well being in some way they are going to get voted out of office.

So I don't believe the Buddhist way is to try to force people to be happy because that doesn't work. They have to be taught what things are really worth something and which ones aren't. When you try to force stuff on them they just rebel and problems happen.

More from Ven. Payutto's book:

Given its dynamic view of the world, Buddhism does not put forth absolute rules for ethical behavior. The ethical value of behavior is judged partly by the results it brings and partly by the qualities which lead to it. Virtuous actions are good because they lead to benefit; evil actions are evil because they lead to harm. There is a belief that any method used to attain a worthy end is justified by the worthiness of that end. This idea is summed up in the expression "the end justifies the means." Communist revolutionaries, for instance, believed that since the objective is to create an ideal society in which all people are treated fairly, then destroying anybody and anything which stands in the way of that ideal society is justified. The end (the ideal society) justifies the means (hatred and bloodshed).

The idea that "the end justifies the means" is a good example of a human belief which simply does not accord with natural truth. This concept is a human invention, an expedient rationalization which contradicts natural law and "the way things are." Beliefs are not evil in themselves, but when they are in contradiction with reality, they are bound to cause problems. Throughout the ages, people with extreme political and religious ideologies have committed the most brutal acts under the slogan "the end justifies the means." No matter how noble their cause, they ended up destroying that which they were trying to create, which is some kind of happiness or social order.

I haven't finished reading this yet but so far it seems like what I would call the only truly Buddhist economic work I've seen so far. Most western stuff I've encountered, claiming to be Buddhist, has essentially been materialistic and based on ideas like "if everyone just has equal amounts of wealth then everyone will be happier" or something. Not only that, but in these peoples' minds "the end justifies the means" in that force is perfectly justified if that's what it takes to bring about these objectives based on material-based theories happiness. This is not Dhamma in the least.

I would highly recommend reading Buddhist Economics by Ven. P. A. Payutto.

The Ideal Person

From A Constitution for Living by P. A. Payutto is the chapter on The Ideal Person:

The ideal person, or perfect human being, who can be counted as a truly valuable member of the human race, and who can be called a complete person, able to lead his community and society to peace and well-being, is one who possesses the following seven qualities:

1. Dhammannuta: knowing principles, knowing causes; he knows the underlying principles and laws governing the things with which he must deal in the process of everyday life, in performing his duties and carrying out his tasks; he knows and understands according to reason what he must do. For example, he understands what duties and responsibilities are involved in his post, his status, his occupation and his work. He knows the principles involved therein and he knows how to apply them so that they become factors for the successful completion of those duties and responsibilities. At the highest level, dhammannuta means knowing fully the natural laws or truths of nature so that one can deal correctly with life and the world, with a mind that is free and not enslaved by them.

2. Atthannuta: knowing objectives, knowing results; he knows the meaning and objectives of the principles he abides by; he understands the objectives of the task he is doing; he knows the reason behind his actions and his way of life and the objective to be expected from them. [He knows] the aim behind a duty, position or occupation. He knows what may be expected in the future from the actions he is doing in the present; whether, for example, they will lead to a good or a bad result. At the highest level, atthannuta means understanding the implications of the natural course of things and the benefit that is the real purpose of life.

3. Attannuta: knowing oneself; he [or she] knows as they are the current extent and nature of his [or her] status, condition, sex, strength, knowledge, aptitude, ability, virtue, etc., and then acts accordingly, does what is needed to produce results, and rectifies and improves himself or herself so as to grow to greater maturity.

4. Mattannuta: knowing moderation; he knows the right amount in such areas as consumption and spending; he knows moderation in speech, work and action, in rest and in all manner of recreation. He does all things with an understanding of their objectives and for the real benefits to be expected, by acting not merely for his own satisfaction or to accomplish his own ends, but rather to achieve a proper balance of supporting factors that will produce the beneficial result as revealed to him by wisdom.

5. Kalannuta: knowing occasion; he knows the proper occasion and the proper amount of time for actions, duties and dealings with other people; he knows, for example, when what should be done and how, and he does it punctually, regularly, in time, for the right amount of time and at the right time. Kalannuta includes knowing how to plan one's time and organize it effectively.

6. Parisannuta: knowing company; he knows the locale, he knows the gathering and he knows the community. He knows what should be done in a given locale or community, thus: "This community should be approached in this way and spoken to thus; the people here have these rules and regulations; they have this culture or tradition; they have these needs; they should thus be dealt with, helped, served and benefited in this way."

7. Puggalannuta: knowing persons; he knows and understands individual differences; he knows people's greater or lesser temperaments, abilities and virtues and knows how to relate to them effectively; he knows, for example, whether they should be associated with, what can be learned from them, and how they should be related to, employed, praised, criticized, advised or taught.

These seven qualities are known as the sappurisa-dhamma, the qualities of a good or genuine person, one who has the qualities of a complete human being.(A.IV.113 )

The emphasis there is mine. This one particularly sticks out at me: "He knows and understands according to reason what he must do."

Unfortunately many people don't seem to understand the "according to reason" part. They think they can just bumble around with a mind of compassion and that will somehow, by itself, magically lead them to do the right thing.

Well, that's nonsense. Among the 10 paramis (perfections) it's worth noting that pañña (Discernment; insight; wisdom) is the highest. The Buddha also said "Clear knowing is the leader in the attainment of skillful qualities, followed by conscience & concern." (SN 45.1)

Even though the Buddha was talking about clear knowing with respect to the ignorance that causes suffering, it would seem to apply to everything. It's also worth noting that pañña means discernment, knowing exactly what is going on, it doesn't just mean some abstract feel-good stuff that just sounds good. You can't simply bumble around like a compassionate idiot and expect to have beneficial effects.

Similarly though, even if you know a situation well your actions can't be beneficial if you're guided by greed and hate.

Conditions of a Nation's Welfare

How might a nation act in order to see to its welfare? The section on Conditions of a Nation's Welfare in DN 16: The Maha-parinibbana Sutta seems relevant. (As usual, even though I don't usually state it explicitly, I am extremely grateful to John Bullet and Access to Insight for making this available online.)

At that time the Venerable Ananda was standing behind the Blessed One, fanning him, and the Blessed One addressed the Venerable Ananda thus: "What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis have frequent gatherings, and are their meetings well attended?"

"I have heard, Lord, that this is so."

"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis assemble and disperse peacefully and attend to their affairs in concord?"

"I have heard, Lord, that they do."

"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis neither enact new decrees nor abolish existing ones, but proceed in accordance with their ancient constitutions?"

"I have heard, Lord, that they do."

"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis show respect, honor, esteem, and veneration towards their elders and think it worthwhile to listen to them?"

"I have heard, Lord, that they do."

"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis refrain from abducting women and maidens of good families and from detaining them?"

"I have heard, Lord, that they refrain from doing so."

"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis show respect, honor, esteem, and veneration towards their shrines, both those within the city and those outside it, and do not deprive them of the due offerings as given and made to them formerly?"

"I have heard, Lord, that they do venerate their shrines, and that they do not deprive them of their offerings."

"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline.

"What have you heard, Ananda: do the Vajjis duly protect and guard the arahats, so that those who have not come to the realm yet might do so, and those who have already come might live there in peace?"

"I have heard, Lord, that they do."

"So long, Ananda, as this is the case, the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline."

5. And the Blessed One addressed the brahman Vassakara in these words: "Once, brahman, I dwelt at Vesali, at the Sarandada shrine, and there it was that I taught the Vajjis these seven conditions leading to (a nation's) welfare. So long, brahman, as these endure among the Vajjis, and the Vajjis are known for it, their growth is to be expected, not their decline."

It is very important for westerners, who are extremely accustomed to "shoulds" in their religions, to note that the Buddha here is not saying that the Vajjis should do anything in particular, but that as long as these conditions hold true "the growth of the Vajjis is to be expected, not their decline."

It's also important to note that there is significant missing information here. For example, "do the Vajjis neither enact new decrees nor abolish existing ones, but proceed in accordance with their ancient constitutions?" To this the Buddha says that, if they refrain from enacting or abolishing new decrees, it will lead to their growth and not their decline. Since we can't tell from that what their "ancient constitutions" were (from this anyway), we can't say exactly why they would lead to growth, only that the Buddha seemed to feel that their ancient constitutions were appropriate at the time.

Speaking of prescription, not everyone thinks that growth is good. Some people seem to think that the growth of a society is actually bad, and the Buddha doesn't actually say here whether the Vajjis should grow or decline, only what sorts of things will lead to their growth.

What's also interesting here is the context of the sutta. The discourse quoted above was stated directly after the brahman Vassakara paid a visit to the Buddha and stated:

"Venerable Gotama, Ajatasattu, the king of Magadha, pays homage at the feet of the Venerable Gotama and wishes him good health, strength, ease, vigour, and comfort. He desires to wage war against the Vajjis, and he has spoken in this fashion: 'These Vajjis, powerful and glorious as they are, I shall annihilate them, I shall make them perish, I shall utterly destroy them.'"

After hearing what the Buddha had to say, the brahman said:

Thereupon the brahman Vassakara spoke thus to the Blessed One: "If the Vajjis, Venerable Gotama, were endowed with only one or another of these conditions leading to welfare, their growth would have to be expected, not their decline. What then of all the seven? No harm, indeed, can be done to the Vajjis in battle by Magadha's king, Ajatasattu, except through treachery or discord. Well, then, Venerable Gotama, we will take our leave, for we have much to perform, much work to do."

To this the Buddha stated flatly:

"Do as now seems fit to you, brahman." And the brahman Vassakara, the chief minister of Magadha, approving of the Blessed One's words and delighted by them, rose from his seat and departed.

I think there's actually quite a bit of commentary on this which I don't have access to. Steven Collins had some stuff to say about it but I've already returned his book to the library. If nothing else, it seems apparent that the Buddha is still not prescribing any shoulds for brahman Vassakara, or anyone else.

The Dhamma Brothers

I learned about this documentary from this article.

I knew that Buddhist teachers had been working with inmates in the US at various times, but this is the first I've heard of a documentary on the subject.

The Dhamma Brothers tells a dramatic tale of human potential and transformation as it closely follows and documents the stories of the prison inmates at Donaldson Correction Facility who enter into this arduous and intensive program. This film, with the power to dismantle stereotypes about men behind prison bars also, in the words of Sister Helen Prejean (Dead Man Walking), "gives you hope for the human race."

Sadly it is often the people who can benefit most from Buddhist teachings who don't have access to them. Realistically I don't think we can expect to see hugely amazing transformations from this (not every criminal is Angulimala) but it is good to see someone trying.

Madness & Vexation

AN 4.77: The Acintita Sutta states:

"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?

"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"The jhana-range of a person in jhana is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."

I quoted the whole thing, but really what I'm concerned with here is fact that kamma (karma) is in the list.

I think I finally understand the importance of this. Originally I thought that some degree of "academic" speculation would be pretty harmless assuming that I personally didn't take it seriously, but I didn't really consider the "madness and vexation" which it might cause to other people and thus to me, even if I tried to make it clear that I was stating a scenario then trying to evaluate whether it was true, possible, or false.

The law of kamma is actually a seriously touchy political issue in Buddhism. A lot of the time it gets intentionally misrepresented at worst and misunderstood at best, and this happens even in Buddhist countries.

And related to developing the skillfulness to avoid problems, this from MN 61 is extremely important:

"Whenever you want to do a verbal action, you should reflect on it: 'This verbal action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful verbal action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful verbal action with painful consequences, painful results, then any verbal action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction... it would be a skillful verbal action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then any verbal action of that sort is fit for you to do.

"While you are doing a verbal action, you should reflect on it: 'This verbal action I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful verbal action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both... you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not... you may continue with it.

"Having done a verbal action, you should reflect on it: 'This verbal action I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful verbal action, with painful consequences, painful results?' If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an unskillful verbal action with painful consequences, painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life. Having confessed it... you should exercise restraint in the future. But if on reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction... it was a skillful verbal action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then you should stay mentally refreshed & joyful, training day & night in skillful mental qualities.

Cyclones in The Manual of Cosmic Order

On this question of whether a natural disaster can be caused by karma, we have a what looks like an answer from one famous Burmese monk, Venerable Mahathera Ledi Sayadaw:

Bhikkhu Nyana who was later known as Ledi Sayadaw was born on Tuesday, the 13th Waxing of Nattaw, 1208 Burmese Era (1846 C.E.) at Saing-pyin Village, Dipeyin Township, Shwebo District. His parents were U Tun Tha and Daw Kyone. Early in life he was ordained a samanera and at the age of 20 a Bhikkhu, under the patronage of Salin Sayadaw U Pandicca. he received his monastic education under various teachers and later was trained in Buddhist literature by the Venerable San-kyaung Sayadaw, Sudassana Dhaja Atuladhipati Siripavara Mahadhamma Rajadhi- raja-guru of Mandalay.

He wrote a number of manuals on different subjects including one called Niyama Dipani, The Manual of Cosmic Order.

Now I'm not 100% sure but I believe this is based on material in the Abhidhamma Pitaka which is largely a systematization of material in the Sutta Pitaka. (The Burmese have a long tradition of studying the Abhidhamma whereas other Theravada cultures usually focus more on the Suttas.) Note that the English in this translation is somewhat archaic because of the fact that it isn't a modern translation.

The manual categorizes the niyama, or cosmic order, into several areas only one of which is kamma (karma) the moral order:

The Fivefold Niyama is as follows

1. utu-niyama: the caloric order
2. bija-niyama: the germinal order
3. kamma-niyama: the moral order
4. citta-niyama: the psychical order
5. dhamma-niyama: natural phenomenal sequence.[4]

It appears to be the utu-niyama that applies to things like the weather:

The caloric order is the fixed process that determines the four-fold succession of evolution, continuance, revolution (i.e. dissolution), and void of the universe. It is the process that determines the ordered succession of the three seasons-winter, summer and rains.... It is again the same process that determines the specific season in which trees, creepers, shrubs and grasses bring forth flowers and bear fruit. And all this order has been made and created by no 'maker' whatever, whether human, celestial, or divine. Inasmuch as it is accomplished entirely by the fixed (or natural) order that we know as 'utu', it is called utu-niyama, or caloric order.[6]

So as we can see, gross natural events like cyclones, if I understand this properly, should fall under utu-niyama and not under kamma-niyama. Though I'm not entirely sure how this is derived from Abhidhamma, and how that Abhidhamma is derived from the Suttas. So it's not entirely clear to me how "canonical" this view of utu-niyama is.

It's also possible that utu-niyama is refering to general patterns and not specific events. Cause-and-effect continues to be a complex subject, but still a worthy one as we can't hope to understand anything about the universe without it whether it be in the sense of empirical physical science or philosophy.

Temiya Jâtaka Vatthu, or Mûgapakkha "The dumb cripple" Jâtaka

[EDIT: Be warned that this does not appear to be the canonical version of this story.]

I found the the full text of one (apparently non-canonical) historical version of Jâtaka 541: the Temiya Jâtaka also known as Mûgapakkha ("The dumb cripple") Jâtaka. The translation is from 1893, so hopefully the language isn't too inaccurate. My thanks to Christopher M. Weimer who scanned the printed text and edited it.

Information on this version:

The Burmese version here translated was written in the year A.D. 1787, during the reign of Bo-Dawe, or Badun-min, the grandson of Aloung-pharâ, when he was engaged in building the huge unfinished pagoda at Mingun (vide Phayre's Hist. p. 218). It was printed in Rangoon, at the Hanthâwati Press, in A.D. 1888.

If you read the last post you'll know this was the main Jataka tale mentioned which highlights, among other things, the difficulties in being a ruler.

THIS Jâtaka stands No. 541 in the Ceylon list under the title of Mûgapakkha or "The dumb cripple." The Burmese, however, prefer to call it by the name of the Prince, he is the hero of the story. It is the first of the ten greater Jâtaka, and, unlike the Bhûridatta, contains little or no folk-lore, but illustrates the value of asceticism.

One of the main parts referred to previously:

About one month after this, [his naming day] the nurses, after washing and dressing the prince, carried him to the King, who took him in his arms and sat under the palace portico. Just then four thieves who had been arrested were brought before the King, and he, in order to terrify evil-doers, said: "As for you, thorns of the country, you villains, one of you shall receive a thousand stripes with rods covered with shark's teeth; one shall be sent to prison in irons; the third shall be done to death by gashing with spears; and the fourth shall be impaled."

The little prince, on hearing this order given in a terrible voice, thought thus: "This manner of deciding cases is not right. I have evidently not freed myself from the fringe of my third existence. If through enjoying my father's royal estate I again fall into Hell by doing some bad act, the burden will be too heavy for me."

On the third day after the passing of this decision Prince Temiya was put to sleep under the shade of a white umbrella, and after a little woke up. Turning his eyes upwards he gazed at it and saw that it was a royal umbrella. Thereupon remembering that he had been obliged to undergo the pains of Hell through having been King, he was filled with dread, and, with the sound of the terrible decision still ringing in his ears, fearing that he would have to become king, he thought thus: "How is it that I have been born in the house of this cruel thief-slaughterer?" Then, by means of his accumulated knowledge of former existences, having looked back and cleared away the haze, he saw that he had come from Tâvatimsâ, and again, considering as to what existences he had passed through, he saw that he had been boiled in Hell, and remembered that it was for bad actions done when he was once King of Bârâ.nasi; fearing that he should constantly be born again amongst men, on account of those deeds which he would be obliged to perform when king, he thought, "I see that I am not free from the five dangers. On account of having enjoyed the pleasures of royalty for twenty years, I had to undergo that number multiplied by 4000, even 80,000 years in misery, and since in the unpeaceful state of kingship one has to put down robbers with a harsh and cruel hand, how can one be pure? How can one cleanse one's self from impurity? Born in this powerful thief-killer's house, which I have lighted upon, even I, at the tender age of hardly thirty days, have seen enough to crush my very heart's flesh, and have heard my father utter words not fit to be heard. If through a desire to inherit my father's estate I again become king, I shall a second time fall into the whirlpool and revolve like a stick of firewood."

Prince Temiya being thus troubled by his meditations whilst lying half comatose under the umbrella, the fairy who guarded it, with the affection of one who had been a mother in long past ages, seeing the Bodhisat in this pitiable condition took the form of his mother and said: "My little darling, by what thoughts are you disturbed? Do not be troubled by thinking about dreadful things; your mother is watching, and will not every wish be fulfined? Darling, if you p. 366 really desire to escape from this pomp and vanity do not disclose your abilities, but simulate feebleness. Though you are not weak, appear to be so; though not deaf, feign deafness; and though your mouth is perfect, pretend to be dumb. Keep up these appearances with determination."

Anyway, I don't have anything to say about this at the moment but mostly posted this just to let people know that the full text is available. It took me a bit to find it.

There is a forum thread here which is useful for locating other Jataka stories.

The Perfect Moral Commonwealth?

As I mentioned a while back, I managed to borrow a copy of Nirvana and Other Buddhist Felicities: Utopias of the Pali Imaginaire by Steven Collins. Unfortunately I've largely gotten busy/distracted with other things and haven't spent as much time reading as I had intended, and now I need to return it to the library.

I'm going to try to get something out of it before returning it, then let it sit in the library a while and check it out again in a few weeks perhaps to read for real this time. Hopefully I haven't deprived some needy student of the book in my negligence.

The part of the book I'm most interested in is Part 2: Paradise in Heaven and on Earth, in particular, Chapter 6: The perfect moral commonwealth? Kingship and it's discontents.

First off, the author is most concerned with what he calls the "Pali imaginaire" which is "a mental universe created by and within Pali texts." So he is, if I understand all this right, more concerned with the historical understanding and interpretation of the texts rather than the issue of "did the Buddha actually really say such-and-such."

The point when I got interested in this book was reading Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of SN 4.20: Rajja Sutta, where he recommends Collins' book for it's overview of this issue of whether it's possible to "rule righteously" or not. (His book was also recommended to me here.)

In fact, the very first substantial thing I posted was "Is it possible to exercise rulership... righteously?" which was about this Rajja Sutta. So now I'm basically coming back to the blog's very first post and investigating it further.

Collins starts out by mentioning that scholars have different points of view on how political the Buddha was; some say the Buddha was apolitical, others say he was a social and political theorist.

Probably the most important thing he mentions is that the texts seem to suggest two "modes" of Dhamma interpretation which he simply calls Mode 1 and Mode 2. (I am sort of quoting some of his words here but I hesitate to use quotes in all places because I'm paraphrasing some places and at least not checking for exactness in others.)

• Mode 1 is an "ethics of reciprocity" which I think of as being moral cause-and-effect (kamma) as implemented by humans. The assessment of violence is context-dependent and negotiable in this mode. Buddhist advice to kings in Mode 1 tells them not to pass judgment in haste or anger, but appropriate such that the punishment fits the crime. Following such advice means to be a "Good King" as he says. Justice is institutionalized Mode 1. Some phrases that typify this mode are "one good turns deserves another", "an eye for an eye...", "it's only fair", "if you do harm expect people to harm you back."


• Mode 2 is an ethic of absolute values in which the assessment of violence is context-independent and non-negotiable. Punishment, as a species of violence, is itself a crime. The only advice to kings in Mode 2 is "don't be one!" Renounce the world and leave everything to the law of kamma. Many stories recommend just this, others envisage the utopia of a nonviolent king. The universe ruthlessly enforces kamma and there can't be a good king because kings necessarily must do wrong according to mode 2 to administer justice.

Google books link to page talking about Mode 1 and Mode2. (Please tell me whether or not this link works for you since I'm unsure if it will.)

Much of what I can remember reading in the first four Nikayas of the Sutta Pitaka seem to assume Mode 2 for the most part. It's worth noting that the author cites the Saratthapakasini (commentary) claiming Mode 1 for the Rajja Sutta and thus it comes to the conclusion that it is in fact possible to rule righteously, though the Mode 2 analysis would appear to generally suggest otherwise.

The author first recounts the Muggapakha Jataka as evidence of how kings are fundamentally evil, regardless of how just they are, in the absolute Mode 2 sense.

In the Muggapakha (Dumb Criple) Jataka, also called the Temiya Jataka, the Buddha to-be is reborn as Temiya, son of a king. At a young age he noticed that his father rules justly, but even in accordance with justice he carries out punishments for criminals.

"Alas because he is a king my father is doing terrible things which will take him to hell." So Temiya, seeing the danger in being a king, essentially pretends to be mentally and physically disabled so that he won't become a king and wont't go to hell, as he had seen happen in his previous lives after he had lived as a king.

Eventually his act is found out and he is tempted by his father to become king using many promises of the usual wealth and sensual pleasures, but he refuses in order to pursue the life of an ascetic. "Criminals aspire to wealth, king" he says, which is interesting because the Buddha doesn't state this in suttas to householders such as the Sigalovada Sutta. (I'm not sure whether to think this is an outright contradiction or if things like the Sigalovada are supposed to have some sort of "Mode 1" interpretation.)

Anyway, in the strictest "Mode 2" sense being a king necessarily involves evil actions and is to be avoided.

The author points out that there is a certain range in which the five precepts are observed by different people depending on their position as laypeople or monks. For example, laypeople typically focus on avoiding grossly harmful actions such as killing, while monks are much stricter, avoiding talk of killing or even aggressive thoughts. Laypeople avoid harmful sex or false speech whereas monks avoid sex altogether, talk of sex, thoughts of sex, harsh speech, idle speech (speech not connected with Nibbana), etc.

So really there's a sort of range here. For the most part only monks try to have absolutely perfect virtue, laypeople try to have good virtue to varying degrees (typically constrained by social responsibilities), and kings, like other laypeople, tend to have worse virtue which is further constrained by greater and heavier social responsibilities such as punishment of criminals.

One might say that rulers "should" just not administer justice and let kamma take it's course, but as we can imagine this would lead to anarchy and chaos as long as the prerequisites for crime are present in society. "Natural" vs. "human induced" results of actions could take lifetimes to occur, too late to punish/condition/train people in and structure society in the here-and-now.

The only way to avoid having to punish people, as a king/ruler, is to somehow have the amazing wisdom (discernment) to address the root causes of crimes such that no crime ever happens and thus nobody ever needs to be punished! Somehow this does not seem likely to happen any time soon given current social conditions. Essentially anyone who could address the root causes of immorality in such an amazing utopian manner would be the fabled wheel-turning monarch.

Still though, I'm not sure if I agree with the author's assessment that this Mode 2 utopia is possible according to the Wheel-Turning Monarch legend, since the Buddha does describe the Wheel-Turning Monarch as having many sons who are "conquerers of the invading army" which suggests that he's likely to have to cause someone to be killed at some point. But who knows, maybe this legendary Buddha-like king could always find a way to discourage any possible aggressor without violence, no matter how bloodthirsty.

So I think I'll stop there. The main thing I take from this is that there are different "standards" if you will for sila (virtue) depending on one's situation. Without being an ascetic (monk) in an ideal situation (such as alone in the forest) it's impossible to have perfect sila without some sort of social responsibility or something interfering with it. As a layperson, the more responsibilities you have the more difficult situations you are placed in, and as you become a more a more powerful layperson (such a a local, regional, national, etc, ruler) sila becomes harder and harder to maintain.

To conclude this post I just want to say that so far this book is very interesting, and it has introduced me to some of the Jataka tales that I had not really looked into until now.

Is the Cyclone in Burma Due to Bad Kamma?

Recently I've been wondering about whether people were going to partially attribute the inconvenient timing of the recent cyclone in Burma to bad kamma (the Pali word for the more common Sanskrit word karma) on behalf of the regime there. The first mention that I've seen so far has been in this article entitled Analysis: Little chance for May 10 Burma referendum in the Bankok Post:

Than Shwe chose the May 10 date because it was "an auspicious date" and because it has allowed little time for opponents to organise campaigns against the referendum, said Win Min.

Now Than Shwe will need to decide whether the stars have spoken against his divine plan.

"Many people are saying this (cyclone) is a bad omen for the regime, and punishment for their crackdown on Buddhist monks last September," said Win Min.

Some things that are important to note here:

• "And what is the result of kamma? The result of kamma is of three sorts, I tell you: that which arises right here & now, that which arises later [in this lifetime], and that which arises following that. This is called the result of kamma." -AN 6.63


• "There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four? [The third one:] "The [precise working out of the] results of kamma..." -AN 4.77


• On the causes of things: "Bile, phlegm, wind, a combination, Season, uneven, harsh treatment, and through the result of kamma as the eighth." -SN 36.21

So as we can see here, it's impossible to really say for sure. The precise working out of kamma is like speculation on the origin of the universe in that it's one of the four imponderables. Additionally, not everything that happens happens because of kamma. I can't seem to find the sutta (please post a comment if you know it) but the results of kamma can also occur due to things that one did millions of years ago in a previous life, for example, which is probably why kamma is so imponderable.

So, it's not really possible to say for sure if the cyclone is the result of bad kamma of the current ruler(s) in Burma, and not everything that happens is due to kamma. Also, I believe that it's possible for a large event like this to be due to kamma for some people and not others. For example, even if Than Shwe's experience of this cyclone is the result of his bad kamma, it does not mean that the innocent victims of the cyclone were experiencing the result of their bad kamma. (I can't find the scriptural reference for this, but essentially results of kamma are a matter of experiencing phenomena and not necessarily shared by everyone in an event. There is no group kamma. If anyone can provide references please help me out here.)

Regardless though, I'm sure many people will continue to speculate that this is a result of negative kamma on behalf of the regime and that this will play a role in politics.

Things in Burma were already bad enough for the people there before this natural disaster. I hope the people of Burma will somehow find some happiness and freedom from dukkha during this difficult time, and I am glad that they do have what little happiness they may somehow still be experiencing in spite of the difficulties.

As for the regime there, "All beings are owners of their kamma, heirs to their kamma." So even if this cyclone wasn't it, they're going to be experiencing the results of their negative actions someday.

Excuses Don't Eliminate Consequences

Two suttas were recently added to accesstoinsight.org. One of them is MN 97: Dhanañjani Sutta, instruction from Sariputta to Dhanañjani the brahman.

It starts off with Sariputta asking another monk about a friend of his in the area from which the monk has just come:

"At the Tandulapala Gate is a brahman named Dhanañjani.1 I trust that he is strong & free from illness?"

"Dhanañjani the brahman is also strong & free from illness."

"And I trust that Dhanañjani the brahman is heedful?"

"From where would our Dhanañjani the brahman get any heedfulness, friend? Relying on the king, he plunders brahmans & householders. Relying on the brahmans & householders, he plunders the king. His wife — a woman of faith, fetched from a family with faith — has died. He has fetched another wife — a woman of no faith — from a family with no faith."

"What a bad thing to hear, my friend — when we hear that Dhanañjani the brahman is heedless. Perhaps sooner or later we might meet with Dhanañjani the brahman. Perhaps there might be some conversation."

So later Sariputta does meet with Dhanañjani and among other things he mentions:

"What do you think Dhanañjani? There is the case where a certain person, for the sake of his wife & children ... his slaves & workers ... his friends & companions ... his kinsmen & relatives ... his guests ... his departed ancestors ... the devatas ... the king, does what is unrighteous, does what is discordant. Then, because of his unrighteous, discordant behavior, hell-wardens drag him off to hell. Would he gain anything by saying, 'I did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for the sake of the king. Don't [throw] me into hell, hell-wardens!' Or would the king gain anything for him by saying, 'He did what is unrighteous, what is discordant, for our sake. Don't [throw] him into hell, hell-wardens!'?"

"No, master Sariputta. Even right while he was wailing, they'd cast him into hell."

So again, we have another sutta that underscores the fact that consequences can't be avoided just because we can think of some justification or the other. We always need to be looking for a blameless way to meet our responsibilities. The ends don't justify the means.

At the end of the sutta, when Dhanañjani is dying, he comes to practice brahma-vihara at the instruction of Sariputta, and ends up being reborn in a brahma realm. So as in the story of Angulimala, we also see from this that one can overcome negative kamma through skillful means, but simply trying to argue that one's actions were justified won't work.

After all, who would you be arguing with? Trying to argue with kamma is like trying to argue with physics.

Monks on the Frontline - Burma

Here's an interesting video from Journeyman Pictures.

NOTE: Looks like the producers have disabled embedding so you can't watch the video inline, and my player scripting links don't work, but you can still watch the video at YouTube and skip to the appropriate time marks manually.

There are a few interesting points that you can jump to here using these links (which probably will not work in an RSS reader):

[1:06] - "The best way to remove this evil government is to use force", states Rambo monk.

[3:23] - I fail to see how advocating that the monks stay out of politics is "towing the government line" or having a pro-government stance as the narrator states. The narrator fails to substantiate this claim. "I'm not interested in these protests because it's none of our business", states Abbot U Arthipha. "Monks should keep away from politics". I don't think the narrator understands this position and additionally there seem to be some translation errors in the subtitles. If Ven. U Arthipha is pro-government then it is unsubstantiated by this interview as he doesn't say a single thing in support of the government.

[8:17] - More information about the "Rambo Monk" and some interview questions. The story he mentions about taming the dragon king is recounted here. (I can't seem to find the scriptural source for this story, so please let me know if you know what this is from.) It is worth noting that the dragon king isn't killed but only subdued.

Rewind and watch from the beginning or view the video at YouTube.

Overall I'm disappointed with this video. The producers seem to have no criticism for monks involved in violence, but seem to have plenty of implied criticism for monks who try to stay out of the situation by calling them "pro government." Since when was refusing to participate in a fight considered joining in on one side of the fight? If those monks are pro government then it is unsubstantiated in the video.

Anyway, the situation in Burma is pretty horrible. It's hard for me to criticize anyone who lives there who feels the need to do something to improve it. I think different people are coming to different conclusions about what that something is though and what their role should be.

A transcript of this video is available.

Buddhist Economics: Invest "Like a Monk"?

Anathapindika, the richest merchant in Savatthi at the time, pays homage to the Buddha. Being wealthy and successful is not evil if one's actions are blameless.

Well, I think the title sounds a bit misleading since monks don't invest in the material sense, but the article Invest Like a Buddhist Monk looks pretty good. I think what he means is, invest your money the way a monk invests in the Four Noble Truths, by seeing things as they really are.

Note that I linked to the article at The Buddhist Channel just to show that I'm not the only one who thinks it looks valid from the Buddhist perspective, but the article actually originates from a non-Buddhist investment site called GuruFocus.com.

The author (Jonathan Herson) manages to draw more valid parallels with Buddhism than E. F. Schumaker if you ask me. (E. F. Schumaker claims to be talking about Buddhism but fails to quote a single Buddhist text or writer.) Quoting from the article:

I noticed that a lot of the characteristics that showed up in successful investors also showed up in Buddhist philosophy. By looking through the lens of Buddhism on stock investing, I was not only able to dramatically improve my investment results, but my life as well.

Isn't that interesting. Perhaps he was reading the Buddha's advice to Sigala among other things. Anyway, quoting from the article again:

Buddhism

• Rationality: Thinking clearly


• Empiricism: The Buddha found his way through his own direct experience


• Pragmatism: “Strictly speaking in Buddhism scriptural authority cannot outweigh an understanding based on reason and experience” – Dalai Lama


• Skepticism
  
  
  
  • The Buddha told his followers not to just believe him
  
  
  • They should test out his beliefs and see if they actually work
  
  

Successful Investing

• Rationality
  
  
  • “Be fearful when others are greedy and greedy when others are fearful” - Warren Buffett
  
  
  • Do not let your emotions get control of you-invest with reason and logic
  
  
• Empirical
  
  
  • Peter Lynch unlearning the theories he learned at Wharton, and relearning how to invest though his own direct experience
  
  
  • Most of the great investors (Buffett, Lynch, Soros) have borrowed their ideas from others, but before accepting them they tested them out. They learned how to invest mainly through their own direct experience
  
  
• Pragmatism: “Ben's Mr. Market allegory may seem out-of-date in today's investment world, in which most professionals and academicians talk of efficient markets, dynamic hedging and betas. Their interest in such matters is understandable, since techniques shrouded in mystery clearly have value to the purveyor of investment advice. After all, what witch doctor has ever achieved fame and fortune by simply advising 'Take two aspirins?” – Warren Buffett


• Skepticism: “Ships will sail around the world but the Flat Earth Society will flourish” – Warren Buffett

As you can see both Buddhism and successful investing have much in common.

My latticework really started to come together after I read the Kalama Sutra (a sermon given by the Buddha to his followers). After reading it, it seemed like I was reading a Berkshire Hathaway Annual Report!!! Whether he knows it or not, Mr. Buffett’s philosophy is very similar to that of a Buddhist monk (the bold wording comes from the Kalama Sutra):

Don't believe in anything simply because you heard.
“You have to think for yourself. It always amazes me how high- IQ people mindlessly imitate. I never get good ideas talking to other people.” – Warren Buffett

Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
“After all, if you are in the shipping business, it’s helpful to have all your potential competitors be taught that the earth is flat,” comments Buffett about the current state of college financial training.

Do not believe in anything because it is spoken and rumored by many.
“ A public opinion poll is no substitute for thought” – Buffett

Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
“If EMT were true I would be a bum on the street” – Buffett

Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
“Forecasts usually tell us more of the forecaster than of the forecast.” –Buffett

But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all then accept it and live up to it.
“ When proper temperament joins up with the proper intellectual framework, then you get rational behavior.” – Buffett

About the only thing objectionable that I see here is the comment about "be greedy when others are fearful." I hope what he really meant was "look for opportunity where/when others are fearful." The author seems to like Warren Buffett who is not exactly my hero or anything, but he is looked to as an authority on investing and thus seems like a valid expert to cite.

I think that the greatest most important thing that people miss about Buddhism is the real meaning of pañña which is often translated as "wisdom." The problem with this is that it seems that everyone thinks that they're wise, and that whatever fluffy, fuzzy, nice-sounding things they already believe are what pañña is referring to. The Dalai Lama loves to talk about "wisdom", but is that really a good translation?

Thanissaro Bhikkhu translates pañña as discernment. Access to Insight's glossary defines it as "Discernment; insight; wisdom; intelligence; common sense; ingenuity." I think that's an infinitely better definition that "wisdom."

If I understand the term pañña properly then I think it also refers to "seeing things as they really are." Now the most important things to see as they really are for Buddhists are the Four Noble Truths, but as a Buddhist I try to see absolutely everything as it really is, even if it's something comparatively trivial like economics or politics.